The influence of the C+N+O abundances on the determination of the relative ages of globular clusters: the case of NGC1851 and NGC6121 (M4)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The colour–magnitude diagram (CMD) of NGC 1851 presents two subgiant branches (SGBs), probably due to the presence of two populations differing in total C+N+O (carbon+nitrogen+oxygen) content. We test the idea that a difference in total C+N+O may simulate an age difference when comparing the CMD of clusters to derive relative ages. We compare NGC 1851 with NGC 6121 (M4), a cluster of very similar [Fe/H]. We find that, with a suitable shift of the CMDs that brings the two red horizontal branches at the same magnitude level, the unevolved main sequence and red giant branch match, but the SGB of NGC 6121 and its red giant branch ‘bump’ are fainter than in NGC 1851. In particular, the SGB of NGC 6121 is even slightly fainter than the faint SGB in NGC 1851. Both these features can be explained if the total C+N+O in NGC 6121 is larger than that in NGC 1851, even if the two clusters are coeval. We conclude by warning that different initial C+N+O abundances between two clusters, otherwise similar in metallicity and age, may lead to differences in the turnoff morphology that can be easily attributed to an age difference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".